Cyber Nations Wiki:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the New Pacific Order
Moved from talk page No good will come of this page ... No good will come of this page, it was obviously written to prove a point and might as well have titled "NPO and its propensity to chlamydia" for all the sourcing and statement back the author has(not) bothered to do. It has no place here. It will encourage warns, flames, edit wars and bad edits. I propose it be re-titled: "Criticisms of the New Pacific Order" or deleted. Esus 06:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC) :True, I agree. I was thinking about what to do with this page earlier and I thought about at least changing to what you just suggested which actually I'll do now. Lol pie 06:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ::In my opinion it should just be removed. The entire premise is propaganda: it doesn't define imperialism, describe how the Order falls into this definition or explain what makes the Order an exceptional case of it -- it just calls the NPO Imperialist over and over (and changing the title to 'criticisms' doesn't change that the entire article is based around this 'imperialism' claim. Moreover, the examples given are either false (listing wars that the Order wasn't even involved in as examples of 'NPO Imperialism'), or not exclusive to the Order (the surrender terms listed are common for all alliances after all wars in history). It's simply a way of highlighting the Order and throwing mud at it until some sticks -- something that no other alliance is exposed to on the wiki. If the wiki is to continue its claim to neutrality then this article shouldn't exist. -- soviestan 6 March 2008 (UTC) Deletion Okay i think it has become obvious that this was a one off pop at the NPO and is not a proper article in that respect. Although its hidden and pretty insignificant so has not caused any major issues, I move that it be deleted on the grounds that its unnecessary and sets several bad precedents: * that articles like this are okay * that articles written solely for propaganda reasons be allowed, and which are entirely POV of the author are fine * that no other alliance is subject to such an article and that it would not be productive to allow them to be so on this wiki * the place for debate is the forums. The wiki is intended to be a largely IC neutral resource which adds IC depth and information, not a forum for debate. Esus 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Delete — It's highly un-encyclopedic: Non-NPOV and not a single source is cited. "Criticism" of an alliance or an alliance's actions, if it's to be included at all, should be limited to a small individual section, and only if it can be reasonably argued to be a widely-held viewpoint by neutral or semi-neutral parties. (I.E. citing a FAN member deriding the NPO does not make the cut, even though the vast majority of that alliance may hold that viewpoint — of course an alliance is going to be highly critical of its opponents.) This is a good guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism : ♦ Vinzent Zeppelin (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)